CLAIM FOR POSSESSION

Putaruru Press, Volume XX, Issue 1209, 21 November 1946, Page 1

CLAIM FOR POSSESSION

HOUSE AT TIRAU A claim for possession of a house occupied by D. Runciman at Tirau was made by C. M. Mirphin, before Mr. W. H. Freeman, 5.M.,! in Putaruru last week. ■ Mirphin had purchased ; #ie house in question, together with seven acres, after returning from overseas last year. As he did) not require it then he did not ask for possession. However, he was now endeavouring to rehabilitate himself as a builder, and as the farm cottage in which he and his family had been living was no longer available to them, he required l the house. He had approached Runciman, and told him he wanted the house. There was a house available that Runciman could use. It was a cottage on a farm, and as the farmer had no sha-emilkers it was available at the moment.

The Magistrate pointed l out that the farmer might reooir- sharemilkers after defendant had moved in, and they would have to move out. They would not have- protection unde- the Fair Rents Act, as they had at the moment.

Runciman, who was a lorry driver, was also a returned serviceman. Mr Grahame, who appeared for him, stated, that the farm cottage was available so long as the occupants moved -out as sdon as it was required for sharerqilkers. He considered-, therefore, that it was not suitable alternative accommodation as required under the Act. Runciman stated that he had tried' to get a house, and had l the plaintiff only told him when he first purchased the house .that he would require it, defendant could quite possibly have obtained another suitable house for himself at the time. The farm cottage was not suitable, as it was smaller than the- house he was in, and was not as near the road. The Magistrate held that the farm cottage was not suitable alternative accommodation as required under the Act.